Pssst, I'm not wanting, he's already failed. Liberal left and the right agree on this! Understand that his campaign "launch" was a little, well, under attended.

The economy is GREAT! Just ask anybody! If nobama runs a few hundred thousand more out of the workforce he'll get that pesky unemployment number back down where it was on his day one. Nothing quite like subtraction by addition.

November can't come soon enough, let America get this experiment over with.

Oh poor propaganda guy, you are so cute. It's almost as if you never fact check anything you read, you are SO ADORABLE!!!!!! I just want grab your cheeks and squeeze 'em.

Did the thought that your precious right wing "news" has fed you a false story? This doesn't look like it was unattended to me:

just worth pointing out, according to the numbers Bush W. spent about 4.9 trillion. Last time i checked 4.9 was not 42.7% of 14.3 trillion...As pointed out earlier, there has been a bigger increase in national debt under Obama than Bush, as of February.

Again, if you did your research you would learn that the arena in question holds around 14k people, and around 10k showed up. Way better than what Romney could get in his home state:

Interesting that the media outlets all seem to be saying 20k. Perhaps they were smart enough to recognize that the 14k figure is for b'ball and does not include the packed floor seating and standing. Just sayin' but 10k seems pretty light to me for a universally beloved incumbent.

he's already failed. Liberal left and the right agree on this! - Why, because you say so? Wow, that's a strong argument, especially with your superlative track record. You do realize that polls say your statement is flat wrong, hmmm?

Check Rasmussen lately?

The economy is GREAT!
- I did not and would not make a stupid remark like that.

Don't run yourself down, you often make stupid statements just like that.
But I'm perpetually amazed at how you measure unemployment from his inauguration day, as if he had magic power to instantly make the recession stop. Unemployment peaked nine months after he took office, whereas it took Saint Ronald Reagan 3 years to get it to start coming down. And he did it by nearly tripling the debt. But you knew that, right?

Is there a date when nobama becomes responsible for something? Just askin'...

let America get this experiment over with.
- Gee, wonder what you mean by that?

Careful, your lib default value kinda blew up on you with your Gadsden flag ignorance and stupidity. But to keep it simple for simple guy, I think we are done with true left liberals

You know, nobama's wars are never-ending, his economy's completely stalled out, and the misery will continue unless he's turned out of office in January.

just worth pointing out, according to the numbers Bush W. spent about 4.9 trillion. Last time i checked 4.9 was not 42.7% of 14.3 trillion...As pointed out earlier, there has been a bigger increase in national debt under Obama than Bush, as of February.

This chart shows the contribution by each to the total at the time, so its a bit confusing. Regardless, straight dollars don't matter, only percentages do. Reagan went from 1T to almost 3T, an increase of 186% (per my previously posted chart). Obama is currently at around half the percentage of W Bush, but again, that's mostly due to the ongoing Bush debts.

So very pathetic...... Do the put-downs and name-calling make you feel better? What torture it must be to live a life where you just cannot tolerate those who don't share your irrational hate. I must be stupid, yet in the real world you wouldn't have a job without me.

I have absolutely no expectation that I'll ever change the thinking of the narrow-minded and ignorant; but one should be able to express an opinion or argue a fact without being abused by some head-case.

I must be stupid, yet in the real world you wouldn't have a job without me.

My job for three decades was protecting sheltered pseudo intellectuals like you. It's really more like you wouldn't have anything at all without me.

I have absolutely no expectation that I'll ever change the thinking of the narrow-minded and ignorant; but one should be able to express an opinion or argue a fact without being abused by some head-case.

This chart shows the contribution by each to the total at the time, so its a bit confusing. Regardless, straight dollars don't matter, only percentages do. Reagan went from 1T to almost 3T, an increase of 186% (per my previously posted chart). Obama is currently at around half the percentage of W Bush, but again, that's mostly due to the ongoing Bush debts.

percentages are the only thing that matter? I havent question your credentials at anytime before now, but really? you do realize its our amount of debt and seeming disinterest in ever paying it back thats causing our problems....Basic Finance 101 type stuff. according to your interpretation of the chart, Reagan should have a 300% growth, alas he does not. Reason? because its a focus on Bush spending trying to play down Obamas knack for it. Its not relative to each other, its just about Bush apparently.

I dont agree with the spending Bush took part in (sheer amount) but then Obama seems to intend to show him up. It wasn't okay then at his rate, and over double the rate of Bush increases it certainly is far less then okay now.

I dont know what you do, or what you studied in school, but i gather it most certainly was not this....

Furthermore, any improvement in the economy is in spite of Obama and his policies and courtesy of the Fed, keeping interest rates down. The second politicians caught wind of the ideas behind TARP they ruined it, their own form of crony capitalism.

He said after asserting that real solid numbers are of no importance in comparison to arbitrary percentages....

Wait a minute, I never said that. I said that the raw dollar amount is meaningless, only the percentage has meaning.

Does a two trillion dollar increase sound like a lot? Well, during the Reagan era, it represented a tripling of the debt, but today, it would be 13 percent. How is this not clear? And why would I have to explain this to you?

Wait a minute, I never said that. I said that the raw dollar amount is meaningless, only the percentage has meaning.

Does a two trillion dollar increase sound like a lot? Well, during the Reagan era, it represented a tripling of the debt, but today, it would be 13 percent. How is this not clear? And why would I have to explain this to you?

^the prosecution rests.....

Honestly though, i think it would do you good to go back and read the "zeitgeist of the Fed" thread. It will explain much of what and why to you and regardless of whether you agree with what i say in there or not, it would do you good to read through the conversation. The first video is junk (zeitgeist) the other money masters videos are good, but far too long.

In short, look at it this way. While the percentages your talking about are interesting, they are arbitrary. The reason they are arbitrary is simple: The debt is of ZERO importance to US in its own rite. However, others viewed our debt and decide what our fate will be based on this number and how they see this number changing (again, not percent year over year. total change). If you were right, and those percentages your married to really mattered, they would have downgraded us far sooner and far more times. Instead they waited until we hit a certain point, and started enacting and talking like we were going to enact, certain policies.

I doubt that this information will be read and understood by you to the extent that it should, but i however feel i should nonetheless put it forth.